Thursday, February 22, 2018

Presidential Responsibility for Russian Indictment


The recent indictment of the thirteen Russian individuals who created “bots” The president of the United States of America needs to acknowledge the seriousness of Russian interference with the 2016 election in order to prevent further foreign interference in our democratic institutions. The investigation into the 2016 election has produced considerable evidence to prove that the Russian government has interfered with the 2016 election, yet the President of our country denies and ignores the substantial evidence because he has benefitted from Putin’s actions.

To distract the public away from the Russian investigation, Trump has tried to control the focus of the FBI to other issues not related to Russian interference to suit his political agenda. Such as can be seen in the case of his tweets about how the FBI’s lack of attention on the Parkland, Florida shooting was due to unnecessary focus on the Russian investigation. From a practical perspective, it makes sense that Trump seeks to divert attention away from his conspicuous election to the most powerful office in the land to try and preserve a form of legitimacy of his position. It is within his best interest to try and sweep the Russian interference in the 2016 election under the rug, but for the sake of the legitimacy of our democracy, this significant interference in our democratic institutions cannot be ignored. Our President need to rise above partisan politics and consider the seriousness of the implications of another country interfering with our democratic process.

Unfortunately, the meddling within the 2016 election cannot be undone, but any other future elections are now at risk for Russian intervention. There have already been reports that there are Russian bots trying to influence the midterm elections coming up this year. Our democracy cannot survive if the Russians are allowed to put gas on the fire that is our political environment. Putin has and will continue to fuel political tension between both radical ends of the political spectrum. Before Russian involvement, our political environment was already significantly divisive. Now the Russian influence has taken its hold on the public, it has advocates on both sides of the political spectrum having physical fights in the streets over their views.
United States of America is the most significant threat to Putin’s foreign policy plans. Ever since the invasion of the Crimea, Putin has had a chip on his solider about he perceived the United States interfering with the overthrowing of the Ukrainian government. Although it is not justified, it is understandable that Putin and the Russian government wished to seek some form of “retaliation” for our “actions” within the Ukraine. It is deeply troubling that Putin went after the democratic institutions we hold so dear.


  It is on the president’s shoulder’s to consider the future consequences that our country faces with continuous intervention in our political environment. We cannot accept that Russian intervention in our democratic elections are just a “fact of life” within our political sphere. Our democratic elections are a sacred and integral part of our governmental system, and must be maintained and protected by those at the top of the political hierarchy. That means that Donald Trump has to step up and not only publically denounce Putin for his actions, but also take steps to ensure that this infringement on our country doesn’t happen again. Politically, it is not within Trump’s best interest to admit that his electoral victory was due to a foreign country’s interference, especially one of our most vicious and bitter historical enemies. But whoever holds the seat of the Presidency has a civic duty to put the country before themselves. Even if that means that they must sacrifice their chance at reelection. If Trump wishes to adequately meet the demands of his position, then he has to stand up to Putin and hold him accountable for his actions. The validity of our country’s institutions are at stake, and our country needs a President who is willing to rise above partisan politics to serve the best interest of American citizens and our democratic institutions. America’s democracy is beautiful in that her citizens are able to have free and open discourse on political issues, but our foreign enemies wish to exploit this to try and weaken our country.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Olympics and Foreign Policy


The active engagement of North Korea in PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games doesn’t mean a better bilateral relation with U.S and neither with South Korea. It is true that it is in the interest of U.S and South Korea for the reunification, but only with South Korea leading the North to the democratic transformation. Portrayal of happy and liberated nation in front of the rest of international community did successfully improve the self-image of North Korea, but not enough to convince that it is willing to let go all of this totalitarian power which it is so proud of.
The obvious truth of North Korea interests has already been proved with the case of “Sunshine policy”. The Sunshine policy was a soft-hearted bribery implemented by South Korea from 1998 to 2003, with its aim to develop friendly relation with the North through economic cooperation and financial aid. It was abandoned for the reasons that the policy was, in practice, indirectly funding the dreadful nuclear program of North Korea and this was obviously misaligned with the intention of U.S, with George W Bush claiming North Korea as “an axis of evil”. The abandonment of Sunshine Policy also provided that the reunification for a national identity is not necessarily the most important priority for either North or South Korea, and the clear preference of South Korea for the involvement of U.S in the issue.
President Trump has been providing mixed messages with his policy on North Korea such he has stated for the total destruction of North Korea and personally insulted its leader, but also suggested he'd be willing to sit down for talks with Kim Jong-un. But for one thing sure is Trump will not deviate his policy from the fundamentals of decades old foreign policy approach, thus, to prevent and exterminate the nuclear threat threatening the free people, to sit down and negotiate with North Korea at the right circumstances (the possibility for denuclearization) and to enforce North Korea into desired condition through pressure and isolation. This similar approach called by Trump administration is “maximum pressure and engagement”. Moreover, the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae in, despite for being a liberalist leader, has already dismissed the popular perception of his possible reinstallation of Sunshine Policy. He actively shows the preference for joint partnership with U.S, acknowledging North Korea indeed requires the pressure and international sanctions to coerce it back to the path of denuclearization. It is clearly visible that U.S and South Korea possesses the strong mutual security benefits, which would not be faded by one positive engagement of North Korea in the international community.
What the Olympics showed was the short-term outcome of positive accomplishment by which North Korea tried to improve its self-image. It is rational for South Korea to respond positively towards North Korea in Olympics, with the confidence that the U.S – South Korea alliance has already adopted the strong foreign policy. It is true that Olympics has brought together North and South Korea for the first time, but still peace and security are what South Korea has been looking for, not the reunification. Thus, the bilateral relations of North Korea with U.S and South Korea will still remain the same.




The Blurred Lines Between Trump Business and Foreign Policy


The Blurred Lines Between Trump Business and Foreign Policy

In the United States, there are many established statutes and laws that regulate the ethical behavior of elected officials regarding issues of conflict of interest. An elected official with significant business enterprises could be promulgating legislation and favoring certain groups in order to advance their personal financial interests. In 2016, the election of Donald J. Trump presented an extraordinary issue, as his multimillion dollar Trump Organization operates numerous properties and businesses around the world. Instead of putting his business assets into a blind trust, as customarily done by many previous presidents, Trump decided to place ownership of his organization in the hands of his children for the duration of his presidency. The unconventionality of the Trump administration and their disregard of constitutional legislation arises concerns about the interdependence of Trump business and United States foreign policy.

On Monday, Donald Trump Jr. traveled to India to promote the new residential Trump Towers constructed in three major cities. Although the Trump Organization is contentious domestically, it is very well received by the Indian upper-class population and is developing a greater stake hold in the country’s business affairs. The business trip will consist of meetings with prospective clientele and real estate brokers to further develop their market in the country. In promoting their properties, there were advertisements displayed throughout the country stating, “Trump has arrived. Have you?” Moreover, there have been numerous claims that the Trump Organization has offered Indian property buyers the opportunity to dine and converse with Donald Trump Jr. for a significant booking fee. Donald Trump Jr. is capitalizing his status as the president’s son to sell properties, influence Indian governmental affairs, and unofficially serve as the “go-between” between the Indian elite and the White House.

In addition to promotional events, Donald Trump Jr. will be giving a speech at the Global Business Summit regarding Indo-Pacific Relations in the presence of Indian governmental officials and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The intersection of business and foreign policy is blatantly clear and encourages the intertwinement of private business ties and the promulgation of policy. Although Donald Trump Jr. does not hold an official position in the White House, it is difficult to truly ascertain that his influence does not extend to the affairs of the presidency.

The developing business ties with India’s elite is concerning because the Trump Organization is negotiating with individuals that most likely have an influence in state affairs. Through the purchase of a Trump property and close interactions with the president’s son, many Indian elite may be capitalizing on the opportunity to promote certain political policy.

Trump’s presidency does not seem to be affecting the success of his businesses overseas. If anything, the atypical president’s reputation has seemed to encourage his supporters in the international community to further patronize his various golf courses, hotel chains, and products. In days following the 2016 election, the Embassies of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia have paid to stay at the Trump Hotel location in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, the country of Saudi Arabia paid over $270,000[1] to the Trump Organization while lobbying to eradicate a piece of legislation that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government over its alleged support of the terrorists. It could be argued that the intentional patronization of a Trump Hotel was an effort by the Saudis to placate the president and gain his support.

Since taking office, President Trump and his organization’s actions have been rebuked by many legal scholars and four lawsuits have been filed against him. The internationalized nature of the Trump Organization is complex, as it appears that many foreign policy decisions are also contingent on his business ties. 

In the realm of foreign policy, it is difficult to understand the extent to which personal motives drive policy decisions. Nevertheless, the discernible overlap of business and foreign policy is concerning as it undermines the democratic process and the integrity of our nation’s highest institutions. The ability of a foreign entity to purchase an advantageous policy that directly benefits the personal finances of our president or any elected official should not be tolerated. It tarnishes the United States’ reputation in the international community, discourages international collaboration and trust, and can be harmful to domestic economics and politics in both countries.